Hi Stephen P. King  

Mereology seems to be something like Spinoza's metaphysics, 
that there is just one stuff in the universe and that stuff is God. 
So there is just one material.

Leibniz is completely diffferent. Every substance is not only
different, it keeps changing, and changing more than its shape,
and is a reflection of the whole universe.

The "changing" and the "different"  aspects means Leibniz is non-materialistic.
And all of my comments could have been said by Leibniz.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/16/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-15, 13:19:40 
Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain 


Hi Roger, 

    You might think that you are being consistent with an anti-materialist 
stance, but consider how your wordings appear to use the exact mereological 
relations that are required for a materialist ontology. A mereology is a scheme 
of relations between "wholes" and "parts", it is what defines the primitives 
that we build our set theories from. See: 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/ 

    I don't have time to show my claim at this time, I apologize. But if you 
have a moment, please take a look at the article and ponder the implications of 
it. 

On 9/15/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Stephen P. King  

My stance there is absolutely anti-materialist. 
Where do you see a materialistic statement ? 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/15/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-14, 12:40:45 
Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain 


On 9/14/2012 8:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
> Hi Bruno Marchal 
> 
> Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended) and so are 
> quantitative. 
> Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them. 
> 
> Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured directly, at 
> least, 
> nor dealt with by computers at least directly. 
> 
> I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split. 
> Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it. 
Dear Roger, 

     You are assuming an exclusively "materialist" stance or paradigm in  
your comment. Bruno's ideas are against the very idea. 


> 
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
> 9/14/2012 
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
> so that everything could function." 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27 
> Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain 
> 
> 
> On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote: 
> 
>> Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, 
>> 
>> 
>> ROGER: Hi meekerdb 
>> 
>> First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so 
>> it only works with half a brain. 
>> 
>> 
>> MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one 
>> cutting the "corpus callosum" here. 
>> 
>> ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a 
>> subjective measure. 
>> Apples and oranges. 
> You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features 
> too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that 
> purposes. 
> Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. 
> Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something 
> is not scientific, you make it non scientific. 
> 
> 
> 
>> So science 
>> can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. 
>> Logic has the same fatal problem. 
> Only if you decide so. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital 
>> transformations, and its 
>> "dual" the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is 
>> proof theory and model theory. 
>> Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There 
>> are many branches in 
>> logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. 
>> 
>> ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as 
>> numbers or written words. 
> Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no 
> syntactical or finite counterparts. 
> 
> 
> 
>> Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw 
>> it out. 
> On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic 
> notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course 
> those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair, 
> or ignorant of the UDA. 
> Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff 
> are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical 
> 3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to 
> computations. 
> 
> 
> 
>> BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists 
>> in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually. 
>> 
>> ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values. 
>> morality, salvation, forgiveness. 
>> These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues. 
> Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the scientific 
> method. If not you would not even been arguing. 
> 
> 
> 
>> The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual 
>> oof faith and moral practice. 
> OK. 
> 
> 
>> Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts, 
>> quantity, numbers, physical data. 
> If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing factual 
> claims, and stop proposing normatible behavior. 
> Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond 
> itself. Like in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology, 
> protecting faith from blind faith, actually. 
> 
> 
> 
>> BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the 
>> human question, 
>> nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense. 
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do. 
> No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are 
> religious, despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the mind- 
> body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for more 
> information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates so well. 
> 
> 
> 
>> As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible. 
> Yes, like PI = 3. 
> 
> 
>> But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with 
>> meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc. 
> OK. Like electronics cannot explain the Deep Blue chess strategy. But 
> computer science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains already 
> why there is something like meaning, value, morality, salvation. 
> Computer science deals with immaterial entity, developing discourse on 
> many non material things, including knowledge, meaning, etc. 
> 
> As I said, you are the one defending a reductionist conception of 
> machine, confusing them with "nothing but" their appearances. 
> 
> Bruno 





--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to